campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Mission Statement
Free Speech Please feel free to refine or strengthen any argument that you agree with. If a point has yet to be addressed, feel free to create a new topic. If a point is brought up that you do not agree with, attempt to disprove it on the other side's argument. If we delete the agreements we do not agree with, this cannot succeed as a forum for free speech. Countering an argument you do not agree with in the same paragraph is not fair to the opposing argument. Respect every one in their right to formulate their own argument. Respect truly free speech.--Nhcollegedem 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Thank you Jimbo. Thank you for providing this resource Jimbo. I hope that other campaigns utilize it now that the "lack of resources" excuse is gone. Communication is the foundation of democracy and collaborative technologies only serve to solidify and expand that foundation. It is of utmost importance that we elect individuals who understand technology and its power to transform government into working for the people as it's first priority.--Pashdown 19:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :Three cheers for Jimbo! Television has perhaps the greatest amount of influence on politics, even though it's the absolute worst medium for a proper political discussion. Reading and writing, that's what will make us free.--71.106.198.77 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Building a Citizen-Centered Approach Welcome to the struggle for citizen-centered politics online. I helped create the first election-oriented website back in 1994 - it was non-partisan, non-profit and volunteer-based like Wikipedia. Back then we didn't have the tools for easy collaborative editing, instead we retyped government voter guides and gathered diskettes with candidate position papers, etc.. What is most important for this effort is articulating a motivating mission that will generate sustained volunteer capacity. While today's tools make it easy to contribute content, bringing people together from across the political spectrum in a sustained democratic spirit is required. At E-Democracy.Org we still promote access election information (even used Mediawiki to gather candidate information in Minneapolis) and are moving our static 2004 framework to a wiki 2008, but we've concluded based on over a decade of experience that sparking conversations among citizens, from the local level first on up will have the greatest impact on democracy. So while we may promote candidate and election websites on a national scale, actual candidates care about their voters. If you can create real online public spaces with voters from across the political spectrum generating new public opinion, then candidates can be knocked out of their broadcast politics mode (see mini-videos of Mayor RT Rybak who announced his candidacy on the Minneapolis Issues Forum in 2001 before announcing it at a press conference for an example.) I plan to share some more ideas in the near future, but for now I encourage folks to check out: * Building Citizen-based Electronic Democracy Efforts * Democratic Evolution or Virtual Civil War * Issues Forum Guidebook and more * Other stuff at Publicus.Net and DoWire.Org - Steven Clift Whether or not we need to elect "leaders," we must somehow choose representation for some things. Most people do not have the time to dedicate to forming informed positions about each and every issue that effects them. Without proxies that have such time (though, as we see in America, often do not use it), decisions about issue x will be made by those who have the largest interest in deciding them. Walmart and immigrant populations will battle over trade issues; Enron and treehuggers will battle over environmental issues; the ACLU will battle the families of murder victims. There will be no clear-headed, centrist voice - or at least none loud enough to match the more impassioned ones. Also, who will run the defense of our nation? We cannot possible trust every citizen with the full knowledge of our armed forces' plans. In an era where information is possible the most valuable warfare tool, militias simply don't make sense. There must be SOME delegated responsibility. This does not, however, mean that we can't make more issues available to public influence. - James Rosen :Many politicians don't dedicate themselves to forming informed positions either. Take the net neutrality arguments as just the most recent example. Whichever side you fall on that debate it's still painfully obvious the decision makers have very little understanding of what the technology in question is or how it works even at the most basic, elementary level. Also, while I agree that military planning has obvious demands for privacy up until their execution, I don't believe secrecy has much to do with actual defense at all. Elsewhere there's a phrase for that: security through obscurity. --Xageroth 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Campaigns, Elections, Officials, etc... Why are we still electing leaders? This is an ancient practice and doesn't seem to be working very well. If, as an example, you are pro-guns, pro-choice, pro-pot, pro-war, and all you have to choose from is a Democrat and a Republican (or even Libertarian), what's the point? Who are you going to vote for? No one single candidate is going to represent all your viewpoints, unless you're a simple follower that can't think for him/herself. If you vote for the "leader" who represents you in some hypothetically "most important" issue, then you effectively throw away all your other important issues. It is a loss of information. Your voice is not being heard, and you have no say. Not only does a "leader" represent a tiny fraction of the issues you feel are important, but that "leader" can (mis)represent you ways you couldn't even imagine. I don't know what the solution is either... but let's stop kidding ourselves. This is not a Democracy. There is no such thing. No true Democracy has ever existed. --brodavi :Democracy is an ideal. Efforts like this bring us closer to that ideal. Leaders are necessary to execute the will of the people and to mitigate majority sentiment with minority protection. Without communication from the people, the executed will is that of donors and moneyed interests that keep them in power. Disconnection from the process breeds cynicism and apathy. No system is perfect, but its getting better.--Pashdown 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :I think the main reason that people vote at all is that it's hard to have a law-based government with succession rules that will be accepted for the long term. Hereditary monarchies, at least when the monarch has any real power, seem to always lead to some sort of contention. The main problem elections solve is the problem of succession. There are certainly better ways to hold elections than the way most countries do it, though! Also, IMHO as little as possible should be under the purview of electoral politics. Kg6cvv 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :In AU people vote in part at least, because you will be fined if you don't. Lucychili 08:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :It's been said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." :) It's certainly about the only one where you can change governors without violence. Much of the current problem in the US stems from drifting into a two party system then letting the same two parties stay dominant for so long that they've silted up and are blocking the channel. Something needs to be done, though whether we just need a new set, if we want to go for something more like proportional representation of multiple parties, or something else entirely I've no idea. Anansii 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I see this as an attempt to improve democracy. If it's one thing that living in America has taught me, it's that people need to be educated to take advantage of a Democracy. I think that this is the major goal of the wiki: political education without media spin. It is my sincere hope that bigotry and ignorance, while being left intact, will be easily noticed as such and, much akin to car wrecks on the side of the road, will be marveled at by passerbys and largely ignored. --Bob 10:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Are you all prodemocratic, and if so, why? Also, what do you all mean when you use the words “democracy” and “democratic”? Doremítzwr 12:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::The Merriam-Webster on-line Dictionary definition of democracy describes what I mean fairly accurately - an excerpt: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Among other things, democracy has the advantage that most of the time most of the people will approve what the government is doing, and if they don't there's a mechanism short of armed revolt to change it. I approve of this. The word "democratic" is an adjective referring to a government set up on democratic lines. Capitalized, "Democratic" means part of or related to one of the two major political parties of the USA, which are the Democrats and the Republicans. Despite the differing names and many political disagreements, both parties favor (non-capitalized) democracy and will cheerfully tell you so. So do I, so in answer to your question I am pro-democratic. As for political parties, I am more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican, all other things being equal, but a lot depends on the candidate him or her self. I will say the Republicans have found more ways to annoy me of late than the Democrats have. Anansii 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Economy, Copyright, and Patents Is this wiki a good place to express ideas on economy, copyright, and patents? --N432 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC) At the end of the day all discussions about politics are discussions about economics. Who gets what needs, met how, and at what cost. -bb --BruceBoston 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I strongly disagree. When we limit politics to economics, we limit our ability to find solutions to problems because everything must have a cost/benefit analysis and if it doesn't balance right we let people die because there wasn't enough money to be made to prevent those deaths. Politics does run in parallel with Economics in one way though. I define politics as the resulting sum of all human interactions, much like we define economics as the resulting sum of all financial transactions. But I will tell you with a lot of confidence that the Sun doesn't care how much Bill Gates earns, any more than a volcano does, but we can have wonderful political conversations about what to do with solar or geothermal power. Economics is a facet of the world, and is only a part of the overall picture of the human experience. Politics encompasses it all. Chadlupkes 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::All funds collected and spent by a political system must come from somewhere, unless the political system has control of a previously-trusted currency and is inventing new funds through inflation. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. --Looser 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::You can not disconnect a system from it's funding sources, as Looser has pointed out. We must function within a cost benefit analysis, and there, in the end, is nothing but compromise. If we, as a society, were to abide by a strict sense of morality and disregard our fundamental resources (money, food) there would be a great deal of difficulty in maintaining any sort of structure and organization. This is why we categorize people who disregard their bodies, nutrition, and otherwise health as ill -- they are an organism that are incapable of handling their own maintinence, and when a society follows a similar path, it will self destruct. There is much to be said on this topic, and if I had more time to think about it I think I could do it more justice, but the point is this: An organism (which our society is in a virtual sense) can not survive when it continually disregards it's fundamental resources. This means that we can not speak about politics without invovling the ever present aggregate resource known as economy. -- illusina Welcome to the big, giant, club. Mr. Wales, First let me welcome your wikia site to the collective. I'm glad to see the direct interest in using wiki systems for political activism from the founders of Wikipedia. Second, let me scream. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I've been working on Political Wikias for six months or more. Dkosopedia has been up since 2004, and just recently upgraded to MediaWiki 1.5.7, meaning I can finally do the categorizing work that I've wanted to do. Wiki systems are the future. But until we get beyond people sending me emails asking me to change something on a page I posted for the agenda of my group's next meeting, I'm just shaking my head. You ask us in your post to come up with a way to do this. And you give your own answer. DO IT! Everyone, please, stop waiting for permission, stop waiting for instructions, stop waiting for approval, stop waiting for someone else to be a leader. Get involved! Chadlupkes 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Open Letter a Little Bit too Open We can turn this into the first beginnings of what is to come: the ultimate means of social control for the powerful. This can be the start of the era of net-driven participatory politics, where people can finally post a video blog on youtube of them talking about boingboing's review of pitchfork's most recent DRM. And it does not matter if you are on the right, on the left, moderate or extreme, socialist or libertarian. Whoever you are, and whatever you believe, you can share with me my sincere desire to be mentioned in Time magazine as often as possible. Pretty amusing, but you might want to lock this. Slacksimus 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Grammatical error and substandard typography in the Mission Statement In the Mission Statement’s fourth paragraph’s first sentence: “Blog and wiki authors are now inventing a new era of media, and it is my belief that this new media is going to invent a new era of politics.” — the emboldened section ought to be either ‘this new medium’ or ‘these new media’, as not even ‘media’ as a mass noun can be used in this context. Furthermore, the Mission Statement should probably use directed quotation marks and apostrophes (aka “smartquotes”, “typographers’ marks”, et cetera), rather than single and double primes (‘, ’, “ & ”, and not ' & "), for professionalism’s sake. Would anyone mind if the Mission Statement is changed accordingly? Doremítzwr 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :Smartquotes don't work too well on the wiki. Some browsers will corrupt these and you end up with odd symbols, which is why plain quotes are always used. They're also a lot easier to type. If you want to make changes to the wording, you're welcome to do that on the public version at Mission Statement/Public version. Angela (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, I and a few others have had this discussion on Wikipedia’s Administrators’ Noticeboard (I encourage you to take a look - please tell me what you think); however, in consideration of your comments, I have only changed a single prime into a directed apostrophe (in the title, where the use of a prime is more obtrusive). I have also edited the fourth paragraph’s first sentence — please tell me if this is the meaning Jimbo Wales intended to convey. ::By the way, would it be possible to include a character box on edit pages here (as on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, et cetera)? ~It’s very inconvenient to have to have an edit page for another Wiki open in order to copy in the desired characters. Doremítzwr 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::That box requires an extension which we don't have installed yet, but it is on the to-do list (bug:176). Angela (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Good-good. I look forward to it. By the way are my edits OK (including the directed apostrophe)? Doremítzwr 13:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Yes, they're fine. In the early days of a wiki, it's best to be bold and make the changes you think are best. You can always discuss it with other users later if problems are raised. Angela (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::::::I suppose, but a lot of people are quick to ignore the policy of assuming good faith and throw about accusations of vandalism; I received a block from a presumptive administrator on Wiktionary for two entries that were later shown to be completely legitmate, and I have had correct edits that I have made entirely reverted innumerable times by people who have not even checked the content of what I wrote (consequently, I now keep text file copies of all major edits I make, to prevent my work being deleted and reverted for no good reason). Doremítzwr 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) First things first... Looking at the mission statement, it seems to me that we need a couple of things. First, we should probably have two complimentary pages (or one large page of two main sections): Something like Why the current political scene is faulty and Why wiki your campaign. This will provide a general groundwork for the entire site. From there, we can start building campaigns and issues. Thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I don't get it. It's too abstract. I think this will fail if there is not a more specific goal. I mean, database of what should this wiki be? Of arguments that lower taxes are better than high taxes? Of politicians and what they did wrong? Of opinions? Of campaigns? Of politics how-tos? In Wikipedia, there is a well-defined goal (encyclopedia) and well-defined rule (NPOV) which ensure that the consensus about the content can eventually be reached. But here, I am not so sure. And, btw, I am a fan of direct democracy. :I like the goal of having a public space for politicians to express their views. I think a good place to start is grass roots style at the local and state levels. The large national elections have too much already vested in the current system and do manage to get some information out. The local campaigns right now are not usually watched by the large public and are fund-raising contests at best. (Who ever gets the most yard signs, and bumper stickers can usually win). :If we were to focus an area of this wiki to providing a platform for real dialoge at the local level we could influence those who actually follow those elections and give them a single place to view local results and elections. Imagine a place where you could find your local community and quickly see messages from the politicians themselves who are running for your lock judges, sherifs and other areas. Access such as that has never been had to elected officials. Hopefully the trend would spred and more people would become informed rather than voting for local elections merely off of name recognition. At least we might be able influence the flow of money into those local coffers that ultimatly helps build the name ID needed to win elections. blong :: I think he's leaving it up to Wikipedians to decide on the aims/goal. I think that it could work, but I worry that too many people will keep watching TV and not use the net. Bloggers and Wiki editors are in the minority I'm afraid. How can we change this?? Mostly Zen 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::I am a political "crackhead" of sorts, but I see no real use coming from this thing. It seems as though it was made up "just because". For example, the article about social security. Anything you would want to know could be found on Wikipedia or through a search engine - including opinions. As I understand the intent of this website to be "discussion", I feel that the wiki format is very poorly suited for this type of thing. Message board systems employing nested posts and separate topics are far more organized. Really, I don't know why this "wikicampaigns" thing is even here. Anybody care to enlighten me in words that aren't as empty as those on the main page, and provide real, actual information instead of broad statements of optimism? User: not quite registered yet Time: 22:55, 6 July 2006 (GMT) ::::My feeling is that it will evolve as it goes. If you have ideas for how this might serve better, go ahead and start something. You could start by linking to your favorite message board systems. It's not hurting anything to have this project up, and who knows? Maybe as it evolves it will surprise you and you'll find it valuable in some way. 75.18.115.149 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I agree with the political crackhead above. We need to focus on campaigns and politicians, not general issues. General issues are better covered in wikipedia. Let's make this about cataloging the campaigns and inviting the politicians and thier teams to participate directly with the public. blong :::::I agree with blong and sympathize with some of what the self-described "political crackhead" above him is saying. This needs structure, and cannot simply be an amalgam of various rants and raves against or for issues. I think the issues concept was not fully thought out, and was destined to be incredibly chaotic and unproductive without a template designed to mold it into something NEW and INFORMATIVE on the Internet. If it simply creates rants, flame wars and endless debates over policies, that's not democracy, and it's not something worth having online. It certainly wouldn't create something as new and exciting as Jimbo envisions. I hope there can be some "pull-back" and a bit of a rethink about the issues pages, at least. - Nhprman 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 10 steps to real democracy Step one: establish wikia campaigns; Step two: make it popular; Step three: politicians become accountable to wikipedians; Step four: alternative political movements form; Step five: two party system under heavy attach from online parties; step six: wiki legislature is released, allowing the people to suggest, edit, write legislation; Step seven: politicians lose power to the people and become more symbolic; step eight: feirce debate about future of political system, liberals want reform, conservatives don't; step nine: liberals eventually win, house of representatives is modified into a wiki style legislative branch, end of the electoral college, redefine state's rights, the senate continues to be awesome; step ten: America is a real democracy. Jimbo wins Nobel Prize. US wins the world cup. Topic Headings I love the idea, but think topic heading would be a good starting point to help define discussions... They should be listed on the index page so people can choose a topic to comment on or opin. The Structure to Coordinate & Create Understanding I was a board member for a Political Non-profit organization, called the 2020 Democrats. I, and others, spent several years thinking about how to do this. I will tell you why our organization failed in a moment. Political action requires common understanding, yet politics, by its nature, reflects diverse and competing values, objectives, and means. In science there is a way to seperate the wheat from the chaff as one can simply test which theories work and which fail. In social science, it is often impossible to create a clear litmus test. Consequently, creating understanding depends on rhetoric--the integration of logic and persuasion. Even when two people agree on a common value and share a common goal, unless there is some mechanism that allows them to overcome their idiosyncratic perspectives, they will not agree on means. The tragedy then is their minor differences will prevent them from uniting to solve the larger problem (or creating the larger good). As soon as you add more than two people, the tendency to degenerate into endless conflict increases exponentially. In the face of this challenge, some very intelligent people on the board, threw up their hands, and said, common truth cannot be realized. In practical terms, everyone has their opinion, and no opinion is inherently more worthy than another. Unless there is some way to adjudicate between opinions to find the one with the greater truth, then this website, along with any grass-roots activity, will turn into ten thousand wheels going in ten thousand different directions. All the information that will be generated will bury and obscure understanding, instead of revealing it. I believe there is a way out of this conundrum. We need to build a website that is based on the principle of Complex Adaptive Systems. We need a way to allow the best ideas to emerge and rise to the top of the hierarchy. This is of course the potential of the technology of the wiki. However, there must also be a more direct mechansim so that people can edit policy ideas, based upon their standing amongst the community. In this way everyone can comment on various policy ideas, those comments can get reintegrated into the front-end, without having a small group of individuals having to authorize and edit every idea. The next suggestion I have is to create 5 different main pages. 1. Current Events 2. Political Races (glad to see it already here) 3. Policy Analysis (this area will analyze current problems. It is entirely objective, fact-based, and apolitical, but at the same time will not shy away from stating the truth even if it is controversial among some minor groups) 4. Policy Prescription (policy proposals and brainstorming to figure out how to solve our various problems) 5. A prioritization of democratic values. For instance, we will place the common good, over our limited self-interest. We will express the truth to the best of our ability, instead of obscuring it... etc. The policy prescription is inherently opinion-based since we are talking about events in the future, and what could work best to solve various problems. The Policy analysis should be scientific, as much as possible. The amazing beauty of the internet is to allow us to attack complex problems, say education, from many different levels. We can analyze the problem economically, politically, organizationally. At the same time we can get the best ideas from local leaders, teachers, students, schools, etc. I believe this is the underlying value of the internet--to reshape the political system. I hope we find a critical mass of people who feel the same, and are flexible enough to bring this to fruition.